Did the Big Bang really happen? Scientist disputes universe's origin story

[sgtnos]

Did the Big Bang really happen? Scientist disputes universe's origin story

Is it time to let go of the Big Bang hypothesis?

www.inverse.com

 

[rod]

What created the universe astronomers observe and measure today and how old is this universe we see in telescopes, if the Big Bang model is thrown out?

 

[rod]

I have a question. If you think of energy or quanta as being the thing which causes the physical manifestation of the fabric of our space dimension, subatomic particles, photons and the fundamental forces then is it possible that this energy or quanta exists with the ability to not cause the physical manifestation of all of these different things? In other words is it possible that energy or quanta has a state of being in which it can cause the physical manifestation of something/everything and a state of being in which it can cause the physical manifestation of nothing & if so then could the big bang have something to do with the process of changing the quantum state of energy or quanta?

Interesting concept involving quantum mechanics. I use two telescopes and routinely observe. The Galilean moons are good targets to watch eclipse events at Jupiter for example. Are you suggesting that at the quantum mechanical domain, something happens in quantum mechanics that alters what I see in my telescopes at Jupiter, for example?

 

[sgtnos]

What created the universe astronomers observe and measure today and how old is this universe we see in telescopes, if the Big Bang model is thrown out?

Do you need a religion? Is that your argument? Not that observation constantly shows things that should not exist (stars, galaxies, etc.)? Does that actually matter if we are ignoring how the universe actually works? At least if I invoked the God argument, you cannot disprove it. Relativity is broken by observation of actual events, experiments and celestial objects. I do not understand why it is so scary to let that go until we actually understand our solar system. They did not expect magnetic fields to be as prevalent as they are, but in the last couple of decades it has become super apparent that they had no idea and constantly express it.

 

[rod]

Do you need a religion? Is that your argument? Not that observation constantly shows things that should not exist (stars, galaxies, etc.)? Does that actually matter if we are ignoring how the universe actually works? At least if I invoked the God argument, you cannot disprove it. Relativity is broken by observation of actual events, experiments and celestial objects. I do not understand why it is so scary to let that go until we actually understand our solar system. They did not expect magnetic fields to be as prevalent as they are, but in the last couple of decades it has become super apparent that they had no idea and constantly express it.

Okay, you invoked God as the Creator of the Universe to explain the origin of the Universe. The Big Bang model does not do this and since the early 1980s, e.g. Alan Guth et al, seek to use quantum mechanics and new math and new physics to explain the origin of the universe - without a creator, thus today many accept the multiverse and inflation existed before the Big Bang event. I do understand both positions and models can be developed using both. However, how old is the universe according to your theory? People can throw out the Big Bang event and Hubble time but should have a replacement model too and age calculation for science to work with. That is how astronomy moved from the geocentric universe to the heliocentric solar system.

 

[sgtnos]

What created the universe astronomers observe and measure today and how old is this universe we see in telescopes, if the Big Bang model is thrown out?

Maybe I should restate that I only care about destroying bad science and presenting actual provable ideas. That is more important than trying to invent something new. Progress in the wrong direction can be regression and that is where we are headed. Does the fact that the Big Bang and Black Holes cannot exist in the same universe not bother you? Does the fact that they justify everything using math, all of which is based on ideas around 100 years old and is disproven by observation? The field has been taken over by math magicians.

 

[sgtnos]

Okay, you invoked God as the Creator of the Universe to explain the origin of the Universe. The Big Bang model does not do this and since the early 1980s, e.g. Alan Guth et al, seek to use quantum mechanics and new math and new physics to explain the origin of the universe - without a creator, thus today many accept the multiverse and inflation existed before the Big Bang event. I do understand both positions and models can be developed using both. However, how old is the universe according to your theory? People can throw out the Big Bang event and Hubble time but should have a replacement model too and age calculation for science to work with. That is how astronomy moved from the geocentric universe to the heliocentric solar system.

A whole theory is needed to throw out bad science? Wow, that does sound like a religion. Prove you have a god before I join your religion. Do you not see the issue with that?

 

[rod]

Maybe I should restate that I only care about destroying bad science and presenting actual provable ideas. That is more important than trying to invent something new. Progress in the wrong direction can be regression and that is where we are headed. Does the fact that the Big Bang and Black Holes cannot exist in the same universe not bother you? Does the fact that they justify everything using math, all of which is based on ideas around 100 years old and is disproven by observation? The field has been taken over by math magicians.

Okay, your comments do make sense to me and I sympathize with some of your feelings expressed here. However, *math magicians* is something to be cautious about in science. Rocket science developed using math and physics. SpaceX building a new spaceship, does not throw out the math department and just push the button, launching astronauts into space. The geocentric astronomy was supported by math too like Claudius Ptolemy and Tycho Brahe, both geocentric astronomy teachers. Copernicus heliocentric solar system astronomy used math too. One model won the debate using math and observations.

 

[sgtnos]

Okay, you invoked God as the Creator of the Universe to explain the origin of the Universe. The Big Bang model does not do this and since the early 1980s, e.g. Alan Guth et al, seek to use quantum mechanics and new math and new physics to explain the origin of the universe - without a creator, thus today many accept the multiverse and inflation existed before the Big Bang event. I do understand both positions and models can be developed using both. However, how old is the universe according to your theory? People can throw out the Big Bang event and Hubble time but should have a replacement model too and age calculation for science to work with. That is how astronomy moved from the geocentric universe to the heliocentric solar system.

Also, again I do not seek to explain it. I seek to prove that what they are doing is lying and wasting money trying to prove something that is actually wrong. We have been able to show it was wrong for some time. This is stupid and I cannot believe you are trying to justify keeping a Theory that can actually be disproven in more than one area. The whole problem is that none of you accept that anything but gravity and collisions/explosions do anything in the galaxy. Do you not see that the pre-suppositions are what is killing science? Holy hell. Maybe if you actually looked at the evidence we could find something, but you blame everything on gravity, even though it is obvious that it plays much less of an effect than we think and that it either works differently or there are other forces acting on everything.

 

[rod]

Also, again I do not seek to explain it. I seek to prove that what they are doing is lying and wasting money trying to prove something that is actually wrong. We have been able to show it was wrong for some time. This is stupid and I cannot believe you are trying to justify keeping a Theory that can actually be disproven in more than one area. The whole problem is that none of you accept that anything but gravity and collisions/explosions do anything in the galaxy. Do you not see that the pre-suppositions are what is killing science? Holy hell. Maybe if you actually looked at the evidence we could find something, but you blame everything on gravity, even though it is obvious that it plays much less of an effect than we think and that it either works differently or there are other forces acting on everything.

Are you flat earth community? FE folks throw out gravity and the heliocentric solar system.

 

[sgtnos]

Okay, your comments do make sense to me and I sympathize with some of your feelings expressed here. However, *math magicians* is something to be cautious about in science. Rocket science developed using math and physics. SpaceX building a new spaceship, does not throw out the math department and just push the button, launching astronauts into space. The geocentric astronomy was supported by math too like Claudius Ptolemy and Tycho Brahe, both geocentric astronomy teachers. Copernicus heliocentric solar system astronomy used math too. One model won the debate using math and observations.

Math magicians- mathematicians and the like that have never done a lab experiment, but run everything through a computer using algorithms they designed (surprisingly they get the answer they expect). These people theorize objects without observation and are surprised when their models do not apply to everything. They start out with what they assume is the answer and reverse-engineer a universal formula that is inherently wrong. Again, gravity is not constant and a lot of things affect it. A lot of the math is based on that. A lot is also based on the idea things are not slowing down in space, despite the gas clouds we find and the fact that it is not a perfect vacuum. I hope that clarifies what I mean. They are inventing math, not doing science.

Experiments that can be performed in a lab or done through observation (repeated and with consistent results) are valid science. SAFIRE is the best example of a lab experiment that shows viability of electric sun model,

 

[rod]

Math magicians- mathematicians and the like that have never done a lab experiment, but run everything through a computer using algorithms they designed (surprisingly they get the answer they expect). These people theorize objects without observation and are surprised when their models do not apply to everything. They start out with what they assume is the answer and reverse-engineer a universal formula that is inherently wrong. Again, gravity is not constant and a lot of things affect it. A lot of the math is based on that. A lot is also based on the idea things are not slowing down in space, despite the gas clouds we find and the fact that it is not a perfect vacuum. I hope that clarifies what I mean. They are inventing math, not doing science.

Experiments that can be performed in a lab or done through observation (repeated and with consistent results) are valid science. SAFIRE is the best example of a lab experiment that shows viability of electric sun model,

Okay, this sounds like flat earth community science here. Is the Earth immovable and does the Sun move above the flat disk earth?

 

[sgtnos]

Are you flat earth community? FE folks throw out gravity and the heliocentric solar system.

Flat earth is a argument used by small minds to discredit others, don't be dumb. That can be disproven through one of the jobs I did in the military, LOS communications and knowing (having dealt with it in different ways) the 24 mile issue with the curvature of the earth we had to deal with. Gravity does not work the way they say it does, it exists, but obviously does not function as they theorize. I would suggest that it is some force that is weaker than elementary particle bonds and that we are missing something important. They did not even believe that metallic hydrogen could exist a few years ago, but they suddenly jumped on it as soon as they could not explain things. That is what I am talking about.

 

[rod]

Flat earth is a argument used by small minds to discredit others, don't be dumb. That can be disproven through one of the jobs I did in the military, LOS communications and knowing (having dealt with it in different ways) the 24 mile issue with the curvature of the earth we had to deal with. Gravity does not work the way they say it does, it exists, but obviously does not function as they theorize. I would suggest that it is some force that is weaker than elementary particle bonds and that we are missing something important. They did not even believe that metallic hydrogen could exist a few years ago, but they suddenly jumped on it as soon as they could not explain things. That is what I am talking about.

Okay, just be advised that FE community uses arguments like I see coming from your posts, thanks

 

[sgtnos]

Okay, this sounds like flat earth community science here. Is the Earth immovable and does the Sun move above the flat disk earth?

How do you like the quick disproval of flat earth using actual physics, particularly radio communications.

 

[sgtnos]

Okay, just be advised that FE community uses arguments like I see coming from your posts, thanks

No, people like you just do that because you cannot handle being wrong. That is why science is in such a bad shape. A bunch of "religious nuts" that worship at the shrine of Einstein. You are almost a joke to me.

 

[rod]

How do you like the quick disproval of flat earth using actual physics, particularly radio communications.

Flat earth discussions is getting way off topic here I use my telescopes and can see the Earth is spinning and lunar eclipses show the Moon is passing through a very large, round shadow of Earth in space just like shadow eclipses of the Galilean moons at Jupiter do when they enter Jupiter's very large, circular shadow and disappear from the eyepiece. Jupiter is a very large round planet with a very large shadow the moons move into, only later reappear on the other side in full sunlight again. Same celestial mechanics at work here with our Moon when it is Full and enters Earth's penumbra and umbra. Viewing a total lunar eclipse like I did last January in Cancer is a spectacular way to see the Earth's shadow, much larger than the Moon and circular shape as it moves across the surface and craters. The Sun is shining on the opposite side of Earth when I viewed - so we live on a large, round planet Flat earth community also appeal to Black Sun or Rahu to explain lunar eclipses above the flat earth where the Moon and Sun share the same side.

 

[rod]

No, people like you just do that because you cannot handle being wrong. That is why science is in such a bad shape. A bunch of "religious nuts" that worship at the shrine of Einstein. You are almost a joke to me.

FYI, I do not use FE arguments to make you look bad, just that some of your material is the same as FE folks use too so I had to check you out. I am testing you

 

[rod]

sgtnos, there is something I do want to ask you. Do you believe the Earth is immovable or is the heliocentric solar system valid science? I am not here to make fun of you. I consider the heliocentric solar system is factual astronomy - my personal observations tracking planets and moons using good ephemeris, show this. That means gravity is real too.

 

[sgtnos]

FYI, I do not use FE arguments to make you look bad, just that some of your material is the same as FE folks use too so I had to check you out. I am testing you

Because the people you agree with call comets dirty snowballs, have you looked at the actual pictures of the surface of any comet? Have you looked at the mass spec? No. You ignore actual science and don't know anything because if you took all of the mistakes in it would break what you know.

Actual question: Could you deal with throwing everything out and starting over? Do you understand what this will actually do to people, their careers and projects worldwide? I do and we have to do it sooner, rather than later. It will only get worse.

 

[rod]

Because the people you agree with call comets dirty snowballs, have you looked at the actual pictures of the surface of any comet? Have you looked at the mass spec? No. You ignore actual science and don't know anything because if you took all of the mistakes in it would break what you know.

Actual question: Could you deal with throwing everything out and starting over? Do you understand what this will actually do to people, their careers and projects worldwide? I do and we have to do it sooner, rather than later. It will only get worse.

Okay, you apparently throw out the heliocentric solar system so the only alternative is the immovable Earth and geocentric universe view. How far away from Earth is the Sun? This is the astronomical unit defined in heliocentric solar system astronomy by measuring the solar parallax during Venus and Mercury transits and a baseline based upon the spherical Earth. Last year on 11-Nov-19, we had a Mercury transit and I observed the entire event, nearly 5.5 hours. This was predicted using heliocentric solar system - long before the celestial event took place.

 

[sgtnos]

sgtnos, there is something I do want to ask you. Do you believe the Earth is immovable or is the heliocentric solar system valid science? I am not here to make fun of you. I consider the heliocentric solar system is factual astronomy - my personal observations tracking planets and moons using good ephemeris, show this. That means gravity is real too.

I believe that everything is ordered in the universe and that nothing is an accident. I think that Electric Universe theory explains why things are doing what they are doing, not how everything came about. The sun is the center of the solar system, the same way I believe that it is a plasmoid at the center of a galaxy. Gravity would cause the moon to fly away from us when it passes between us and the sun if you did the math. Why? Because the sun is exerting twice the force on the moon that the earth should not be overcome through its orbital speed. I don't know the math for it myself, just that it was done and that was the result.

 

[sgtnos]

Again, you have to go with stupid flat earth ideas to try to discredit someone and could not wait for a reply. I also observe the sun every morning and check solar cycles. I watch cosmic ray spikes on telemetry. I do science. I am not a fan of doing a lot of math and I know its importance. The sun is the center, in case I was not clear. Again, knowing the constant for earth curvature would disprove any idea of non-heliocentrism. Do you not understand that NASA has to constantly correct their math and fix things? They try to make a space-time argument, but it often looks more like forces are not constant or work differently than they think. How are they unable to correct for space-time if they have the math? Why would they have to constantly monitor so many things in space if it was that simple. Are you even aware that a nuke in space or serious explosion could ground space flight for over 10 years because of all of the garbage we have up there? The people in charge of these programs and projects will lose everything when they are found out and they have a vested interest in not allowing it. Religious charlatans.

 

[rod]

I believe that everything is ordered in the universe and that nothing is an accident. I think that Electric Universe theory explains why things are doing what they are doing, not how everything came about. The sun is the center of the solar system, the same way I believe that it is a plasmoid at the center of a galaxy. Gravity would cause the moon to fly away from us when it passes between us and the sun if you did the math. Why? Because the sun is exerting twice the force on the moon that the earth should not be overcome through its orbital speed. I don't know the math for it myself, just that it was done and that was the result.

My recommendation - you may want to consider starting a discussion on the heliocentric solar system vs. immovable Earth and geocentric universe model. Apparently the Electric Universe Theory is not heliocentric solar system astronomy and rejects gravity so everything will change in astronomy concerning the solar system, like predictions of lunar eclipses (the Sun will pull the Moon away), Galilean moon eclipse events and transits, etc. Keep in mind that Tycho Brahe believed in the geocentric, heliocentric solar system where the planets moved around the Sun, and the Sun and planets traveled around the Earth and the Moon moved around the Earth. The Electric Universe Theory sounds more like Tesla who threw out Newton gravity and Einstein General Relativity which means heliocentric solar system astronomy and measurements are tossed too.

 

[sgtnos]

Okay, you apparently throw out the heliocentric solar system so the only alternative is the immovable Earth and geocentric universe view. How far away from Earth is the Sun? This is the astronomical unit defined in heliocentric solar system astronomy by measuring the solar parallax during Venus and Mercury transits and a baseline based upon the spherical Earth. Last year on 11-Nov-19, we had a Mercury transit and I observed the entire event, nearly 5.5 hours. This was predicted using heliocentric solar system - long before the celestial event took place.

Also, a lot of ancient peoples could do the math to figure out transits. Most of those are fairly regular. One thing we have never been able to predict as closely are comets and asteroids. That is why they have to do the +- on all of them, with such a large margin of error.